Well, in the classic triangle, Lois’s romantic dilemma is essentially a sham. Whether she chooses noble-but-ordinary (Clark) or the romantic ideal (Superman), she’ll ultimately be rewarded with “both.”

In SR, where the options aren’t conflated, Lois’s choice is real, has real significance and implications. And that makes it intrinsically more dramatic.

Well said, but do you think that dramatic tension is suitable for a Superman movie?

Re-word, re-phrase it the way you want. The Lois-Clark relationship was based on STM and follows that. And the whole point of this was that sf2 was outraged that Lois was not a role model. And she has never been one in the Donnerverse.

That would be all well and good,if you weren't chief among those who called out MJ for being a tramp in the Raimi films. MJ was never a "saint" either.So it's a little disingenuous for you to suddenly take up for Lois jumping in the sack with Richard mere days after "The love of her life" up and disappears.That kind of thing isn't Lois,and it damn sure isn't consistent with Kidder's Lois,whom she is supposed to be portraying.

It's what's in the movie. Superman gets to see the kryptonite beneath the island surface when he feels weak. But when he's lifting the island, the kryptonite only emerges later (I assume the lower part of the island was thicker so kryptonite took longer to emerge).

And then we have the sun re-charge in between.

Supe should still have been powerless from the kryptonite inside him.A sun recharge wouldn't matter.He gets his powers from the sun,but it's not like it's some huge battery for him to draw powers from.

Fair enough, but what I was responding to was what you said in response to that. I think we have clarified Lois did not despise Clark in STM and SII. She did consider him a friend. She wasn't some superficial harlot who ignored him in favor of Superman. Superman was clearly crushing on her and the feeling was mutual. I am glad that is clear.

In my opinion SR Lois was cold. I didn't get a lot of warmth or energy from her, and I blame that completely on Singer and Bosworth. She was upset with Superman (rightfully so) because he left without saying goodbye when they were clearly (?) in a relationship. Because of the vague history, it's unclear what was going on, or why she's really mad, so it comes off as cold. The vague explanation is what hampers truly exploring the relationship because Singer didn't actually follow the Donnerverse, he just picked certain elements that he wanted for his depressing Superman flick.

Well, Clark was out for 5 years (and I'm sure that he didn't say good-bye either). And more than a friendship, Lois was compassionate to him. When we compare her to Lana Lang, we see that it's Lana who accepts Clark the way he is, clumsy and everything. Lois is all for the colorful muscular Superman.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr.

Well, in the classic triangle, Lois’s romantic dilemma is essentially a sham. Whether she chooses noble-but-ordinary (Clark) or the romantic ideal (Superman), she’ll ultimately be rewarded with “both.”

In SR, where the options aren’t conflated, Lois’s choice is real, has real significance and implications. And that makes it intrinsically more dramatic.

Exactly. This time we see Clark actually jealous, not just pretending. And thank god we didn't get the average usual arrogant idiot we all can hate. Singer went for a more adult take in which things are not black and white, easy to solve. When we get the usual arrogant idiot, we know from the start who's going to get the girl and who's going to lose, and all's fine and dandy at the end.

Well, Clark was out for 5 years (and I'm sure that he didn't say good-bye either). And more than a friendship, Lois was compassionate to him. When we compare her to Lana Lang, we see that it's Lana who accepts Clark the way he is, clumsy and everything. Lois is all for the colorful muscular Superman.

What in the name of the Hype are you talking about? What in the hell does Lana Lang have to do with Lois in SR? Was Lana Lang in SR???

Dude...you will say ANYTHING to support SR, even when you just said other incarnations have nothing to do with SR.

I mean...c'mon Senator Pleasury? What are you trying to accomplish here? Seriously?

You didn't even respond to my valid points... You just brought up some other ******** that isn't even relevant!

Quote:

Exactly. This time we see Clark actually jealous, not just pretending. And thank god we didn't get the average usual arrogant idiot we all can hate. Singer went for a more adult take in which things are not black and white, easy to solve. When we get the usual arrogant idiot, we know from the start who's going to get the girl and who's going to lose, and all's fine and dandy at the end.

Dude...you shouldn't even drag Dr.'s legitimate argument into your ********. You making him look bad!

They were punished according to their own actions. They could have escaped (as Luthor and Kitty did), but their greediness made them to take too much of a risk and they perished because of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Human Torch

That would be all well and good,if you weren't chief among those who called out MJ for being a tramp in the Raimi films. MJ was never a "saint" either.So it's a little disingenuous for you to suddenly take up for Lois jumping in the sack with Richard mere days after "The love of her life" up and disappears.That kind of thing isn't Lois,and it damn sure isn't consistent with Kidder's Lois,whom she is supposed to be portraying.

Superman didn't say good-bye and just left her alone. She was heartbroken, hurt, betrayed. Mix that with her impulsiveness and you got it.

MJ had no reasons to do much of what she did.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Human Torch

Supe should still have been powerless from the kryptonite inside him.A sun recharge wouldn't matter.He gets his powers from the sun,but it's not like it's some huge battery for him to draw powers from.

Apparently, it is.

And at the very least it shows that Singer addressed the subject of how Superman was able to resist kryptonite for a while (in the end he still was affected by it and died for a moment).

Well said, but do you think that dramatic tension is suitable for a Superman movie?

That’s a separate - but entirely legitimate - question. Originally, the “two person triangle” was just a lighthearted bit of tension and comedy. And you could certainly make the case that it should stay that way - i.e., don’t substitute a more mature drama into a scenario that was never designed for that purpose. But having been teased with the classic triangle for years, I was happy that SR changed up the dynamic. Btw, I was happy that MOS did this too (though their approach was obviously different).

You said "Or...he acts so incredibly wimpy and meek he seems a little deserving of pity."

Yes, I said that in regard to how HE, Kal-El/Superman/Clark Kent, was acting in STM and SII, which is considered the Donnerverse. SIII and SIV are not considered part of the Donnerverse, since Donner had nothing to do with them, and SR has nothing to do with SIII and SIV. SINGER himself said SR was only based on a vague history of STM and SII.

This is also what you said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury

And since SR is a sequel to the Donnerverse, then other interpretations are irrelevant.

So please explain what you are talking about by mentioning Lana Lang and SIII. What do any of those things have to do with SR?

Yet here you are saying this...

Quote:

And Lana Lang (Superman III) shows you that it doesn't matter as she appreciated Clark the way he was. But not Lois, she was all for the blue prince or nothing. I had referred to Lois's compassion and pity (more than appreciation) when it's about Clark enough to say it again.

I have no idea what you are saying, and I don't think you do either.

Quote:

With your permission or without it, I'll choose what posts to reply and how. This is the second time you try to stop me from replying.

I can't stop you from posting... I am asking not to drag down the Dr. with your ********.

Yes, I said that in regard to how HE, Kal-El/Superman/Clark Kent, was acting in STM and SII, which is considered the Donnerverse. SIII and SIV are not considered part of the Donnerverse, since Donner had nothing to do with them, and SR has nothing to do with SIII and SIV. SINGER himself said SR was only based on a vague history of STM and SII.

This is also what you said:

So please explain what you are talking about by mention Lana Lang and SIII. What do any of those things have to do with SR?

Yet here you are saying this...

I have no idea what you are saying, and I don't think you do either.

I posted an example of how a woman can accept Clark the way he is. I thought it was clear enough.

SR might follow STM and SII only, but SIII and SIV are still the universe Donner started.

Quote:

Originally Posted by charl_huntress

I can't stop you from posting... I am asking not to drag down the Dr. with your ********.

That’s a separate - but entirely legitimate - question. Originally, the “two person triangle” was just a lighthearted bit of tension and comedy. And you could certainly make the case that it should stay that way - i.e., don’t substitute a more mature drama into a scenario that was never designed for that purpose. But having been teased with the classic triangle for years, I was happy that SR changed up the dynamic. Btw, I was happy that MOS did this too (though their approach was obviously different).

This. The triangle had already been explored and developed in the previous movies to keep doing it in SR the same way.

They were punished according to their own actions. They could have escaped (as Luthor and Kitty did), but their greediness made them to take too much of a risk and they perished because of it.

This also brings up the "Does Superman kill" thing all over again.But it's sort of the same thing as Batman Begins in not saving the crooks,only leaving them the slightest chance to escape with their lives.

Superman didn't say good-bye and just left her alone. She was heartbroken, hurt, betrayed. Mix that with her impulsiveness and you got it.

MJ had no reasons to do much of what she did.

MJ was no less impulsive. Only you are willing to excuse Lois living with a guy (that you admit,she didn't love) and have him raise a kid that might or might not not be his,and condemn MJ for marrying a guy she didn't love,only to come to her senses and leave him at the last minute.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury

Apparently, it is.

Only in this movie.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury

And at the very least it shows that Singer addressed the subject of how Superman was able to resist kryptonite for a while (in the end he still was affected by it and died for a moment).

That doesn't really excuse him from playing fast and lose with the "rules" of the mythos.

That’s a separate - but entirely legitimate - question. Originally, the “two person triangle” was just a lighthearted bit of tension and comedy. And you could certainly make the case that it should stay that way - i.e., don’t substitute a more mature drama into a scenario that was never designed for that purpose. But having been teased with the classic triangle for years, I was happy that SR changed up the dynamic. Btw, I was happy that MOS did this too (though their approach was obviously different).

Again well said, and you are right. There is something to be said for changing that dynamic. I also appreciated what they did in MOS (and SV for that matter), and I was pleasantly surprised by it...tbh.

Lois knowing Clark's secret, and helping to protect it, allows the triangle dynamic to expand in a good way that enhances both characters. I noticed new dimensions to MOS Lois I had never seen before, which was a good thing because it enhanced her and the story. Superman, as a character, was made more vulnerable, but wasn't actually depowered. I like all this and saw what Snyder and Goyer did as a progression.

My issue with SR's direction is the dynamic Singer added did none of what MOS did. Singer's dynamic didn't add anything to enhance either character. It barely did anything for the actual story itself. It was just there with barely any context, and a 30-year old movie blueprint (twice removed) to explain it.

While you can say it was dramatic...and more mature, what actual purpose did it serve?

This also brings up the "Does Superman kill" thing all over again.But it's sort of the same thing as Batman Begins in not saving the crooks,only leaving them the slightest chance to escape with their lives.

Well, since he didn't kill them, it wouldn't bring up the subject. Luthor and Kitty didn't die and they were in the same place. Makes you wonder what was the difference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Human Torch

MJ was no less impulsive. Only you are willing to excuse Lois living with a guy (that you admit,she didn't love) and have him raise a kid that might or might not not be his,and condemn MJ for marrying a guy she didn't love,only to come to her senses and leave him at the last minute.

I'll be damned if I remember when I criticized MJ for doing that. I don't remember Peter Parker leaving without saying good-bye though.

Anyways, Lois had both the reasons and the personality in SR.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Human Torch

Only in this movie.

And only in SIII that artificial kryptonite made Superman behave like he did. So we accept that artificial kryptonite can do it. In no other movie, Superman thought of re-charging his cells before being exposed to kryptonite, but we do know he gets his powers from the sun.

Anyways, Singer did address the subject.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Human Torch

That doesn't really excuse him from playing fast and lose with the "rules" of the mythos.

There are no rules set about it in the movies, so Singer was - much like SIII makers about the artificial kryptonite or SII makers about the rules for a Kryptonian to be with a human - creating them.

SIII and SIV take place in the Donnerverse (they weren't directed by Donner himself but neither was SII). Later they were ignored by Singer. And, as I already said, that was merely in regads to your statement: "Or...he acts so incredibly wimpy and meek he seems a little deserving of pity."

So you take something out of context to quote something that is further out of context? ...okay

No wonder you like SR!

Quote:

Because it's against the rules. And no one is telling you where or how to post.

lolololol....is that what you thought I was doing?

Quote:

And for sure I won't follow your orders.

Good for you son! Never let anyone (including me) tell you what to do!

Quote:

Well, in fact the triangle had already been explored and developed in the previous movies indeed.

It's really too bad Singer elected not to push forward with something original and instead used a 30-year movie to make a quasi-sequel. It's really sad because it SR might have been something good... Unfortunately it was not.

Well, since he didn't kill them, it wouldn't bring up the subject. Luthor and Kitty didn't die and they were in the same place. Makes you wonder what was the difference.

It's almost the exact same scenario as the Batman/Ra's one you hated.Supe says "I know there's living people on this island,but hey,they should have sense enough to get in the copter and fly away before I can get this big ol' island into space."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury

I'll be damned if I remember when I criticized MJ for doing that. I don't remember Peter Parker leaving without saying good-bye though.

He more or less dumped her at the end of the first movie.Gave her a better motivation to move on (after two YEARS) than Lois had barely a month after Supe's departure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury

Anyways, Lois had both the reasons and the personality in SR.

As I said,her personality didn't in fact match up with Kidder,who practically worshiped Supe.Sure,it's all for the almighty drama,but I can't believe Kidder playing that same part.Not by a long shot.She'd have sat by the phone for five years,expecting he'd be back any time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury

And only in SIII that artificial kryptonite made Superman behave like he did. So we accept that artificial kryptonite can do it. In no other movie, Superman thought of re-charging his cells before being exposed to kryptonite, but we do know he gets his powers from the sun.

Anyways, Singer did address the subject.

There's a difference between adding to the rules and outright ignoring them.

Kryptonite with tar= Evil Superman

Kryptonite stuck in Superman = him writhing in agoney on the ground.He'd never be able to stand,much less fly to the sun (which I suppose has become his battery,kinda like Green Lantern's Lanteren?He has to "recharge" every so often?)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury

There are no rules set about it in the movies, so Singer was - much like SIII makers about the artificial kryptonite or SII makers about the rules for a Kryptonian to be with a human - creating them.

They already established that he's powerless in STM and (heck in every incarnation) that Superman can't even touch kryptonite to throw it away,much less do amazing feats with a piece in his body!

One of the problems with kryptonite (among several) is that’s it’s a short-range weapon. Commonly, it’s used in its “raw” form (a single meteorite) - so necessarily, Superman has to be tricked into approaching it. Sample any number of stories from the Silver Age and note the creatively wacky booby-traps and ambushes used. Now Supes might be forgiven for falling for these schemes once, twice or even three times. But eventually, he starts to come across as excessively gullible. Given the apparent ubiquity of kryptonite (every villain seemed to have access to the stuff ) why doesn’t he take more precautions? Of course, if Supes could anticipate and forestall every attempted use of kryptonite, it would negate the very point of giving him an Achilles Heel. Ultimately, you might have to treat the use of kryptonite like the glasses disguise: it doesn’t quite make sense, but we “give it a wink” as a decades-old convention.

Or… don’t “give it a wink” and call it a sloppy and overused trope that makes Supes look dumb. But if so, that’s an issue for the mythos as whole and not particularly unique to SR.

Classically, Superman-Clark-Lois constitutes a love “triangle.” And while Clark is clearly interested in Lois, she (depending on the iteration) either ignores Clark or is romantically torn between him and Superman. Often, this dynamic has been played for laughs (Hey, isn’t it funny that the guy Lois rejects is really the guy she pines for? ) And to the extent it’s more nuanced, it paints Supes/Clark as dysfunctional and Lois as shallow.

In SR, Clark was pretty much sidelined as any sort of legitimate love interest and Richard replaced him as the third point in the triangle. Essentially, Richard was a better version of what Clark (ostensibly) represented. And in dramatic/thematic terms, that was more interesting.

Ya, u r right. If kryptonite was used, he must fall into the trap. That's the whole purpose.
Maybe I hope superman to be a little macho and I'm not ready to see superman being beaten by normal folks. Sorta weird n cheap.

Let's put it this way, Lois was made as an unlovable character. And has to be discharged off for the story to continue.

I just think SR didn't do the 'Superman Returns' theme at all... just like the article Lois wanna write at the end, why does the world needs superman. After watching the whole movie, u don't see why the world need him. It's sad.

So you take something out of context to quote something that is further out of context? ...okay

No wonder you like SR!

You stated something and I disproved you. Clark is not completely unlikable just because he's clumsy, as you stated. It was just that Lois is that kind of woman who needs a muscular blue prince to feel attracted to a man.

Quote:

Originally Posted by charl_huntress

lolololol....is that what you thought I was doing?

Good for you son! Never let anyone (including me) tell you what to do!

Yes, that's what you've been doing.

False accusations about my identity. Then moved to tell me when, to whom and how to reply. And then patronizing and laughing everything away. Classic flaming tactics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by charl_huntress

It's really too bad Singer elected not to push forward with something original and instead used a 30-year movie to make a quasi-sequel. It's really sad because it SR might have been something good... Unfortunately it was not.

Could you believe there are people basing movies 70 year old comics and books!

******************************************

Quote:

Originally Posted by Human Torch

It's almost the exact same scenario as the Batman/Ra's one you hated.Supe says "I know there's living people on this island,but hey,they should have sense enough to get in the copter and fly away before I can get this big ol' island into space."

And it worked for Luthor and Kitty, pretty much everyone that didn't stay taking the money.

As for the Ra's/Batman situiation, that's different: in the movie, Bruce is forced to kill, but he refuses. Ra's tells him, "Your compassion is a weakness your enemies will not share," to which Bruce replies, "That's why it's so important. It separates us from them." I don't say Bruce was a killer, I say Bruce learned from Ra's precisely what he explicitly said that separated him from Ra's when he sAid "I don't have to save you."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Human Torch

He more or less dumped her at the end of the first movie.Gave her a better motivation to move on (after two YEARS) than Lois had barely a month after Supe's departure.

Peter explained MJ he couldn't be more than a friend. She got the explanation, it was an average break-up (even when they weren't much of an item yet). In Lois's case, Superman didn't even say good-bye, that is completely different and is what put Lois against Superman, made her angry and spiteful.

But I have never ranted against MJ because she moved on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Human Torch

As I said,her personality didn't in fact match up with Kidder,who practically worshiped Supe.Sure,it's all for the almighty drama,but I can't believe Kidder playing that same part.Not by a long shot.She'd have sat by the phone for five years,expecting he'd be back any time.

Kidder's Lois worshiped Superman because he didn't leave her for six years without explaining why or saying good-bye when Kidder played the character. The rest of what you think she would have done is just your personal conjecture.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Human Torch

There's a difference between adding to the rules and outright ignoring them.

Kryptonite with tar= Evil Superman

Kryptonite stuck in Superman = him writhing in agoney on the ground.He'd never be able to stand,much less fly to the sun (which I suppose has become his battery,kinda like Green Lantern's Lanteren?He has to "recharge" every so often?)

Rules are that kryptonite works by presence. When it's in the room or close, it affects Superman. When it's not, it doesn't, right?

So, all of a sudden the addition of tar makes the whole kryptonite work differently, as in SIII Superman was affected by kryptonite when it was NOWHERE near him.

Rules changed right there! Kryptonite doesn't need to be near Superman anymore.

But there's the tar addition, that had never seen before in the movies (and comics, maybe), and we're there to believe that tar alone makes that whole difference.

Same with the sun re-charge, only this is closer to the basic rules, as we all know Superman gets his powers from the sun. Get it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Human Torch

They already established that he's powerless in STM and (heck in every incarnation) that Superman can't even touch kryptonite to throw it away,much less do amazing feats with a piece in his body!

And I don't remember him flying to the sun to re-charge his cells in STM.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Human Torch

Well,they also dropped the triangle in MOS,and it also left that film feeling flat as well.

Difference is, SR dropped the triangle only AFTER it had been there for two movies, not before it even had the chance to exist.

************************************************** **********

Quote:

Originally Posted by sf2

Ya, u r right. If kryptonite was used, he must fall into the trap. That's the whole purpose.
Maybe I hope superman to be a little macho and I'm not ready to see superman being beaten by normal folks. Sorta weird n cheap.

Just like if Batman had been stabbed by Talia and he couldn't fight anymore. Kryptonite weakens Superman the same way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sf2

I just think SR didn't do the 'Superman Returns' theme at all... just like the article Lois wanna write at the end, why does the world needs superman. After watching the whole movie, u don't see why the world need him. It's sad.

Yeah, who needed him to save the plane, the shuttle, Metropolis from an earthquake or that continent that was going to flood America.

You stated something and I disproved you. Clark is not completely unlikable just because he's clumsy, as you stated. It was just that Lois is that kind of woman who needs a muscular blue prince to feel attracted to a man.

There you go again with your broad generalizations. I don't think you actually believe what you just said, but only said it because you think it's some kind of bonus argument. You did not disprove anything. You did what you continually do, Senator, which is bring up something irrelevant you think supports your statement. The funny thing is you don't even sound very knowledge abut Superman, STM, SII, SIII or SIV. I suggest you watch all the movies again, and read a few comics after you're done.

Quote:

Yes, that's what you've been doing. False accusations about my identity. Then moved to tell me when, to whom and how to reply. And then patronizing and laughing everything away. Classic flaming tactics.

Hahahaah.....ahahahhahaah.....hahahahaah....hahaha ha..... You have fun at the Hype, Senator. You are going to need a sense of humor for the long road ahead...

Quote:

Could you believe there are people basing movies 70 year old comics and books!

What's your point? Ahhh...that's right...you don't have a point. Again, you're just saying something that's irrelevant. That's what you do when you can't rebut. You just throw something else out there that has nothing to do with the conversation.

Let me ask you this... Why do you care about SR so much? I freely admit I have an unhealthy fascination with trashing this movie, but you... What's your deal?

There you go again with your broad generalizations. I don't think you actually believe what you just said, but only said it because you think it's some kind of bonus argument. You did not disprove anything. You did what you continually do, Senator, which is bring up something irrelevant you think supports your statement. The funny thing is you don't even sound very knowledge abut Superman, STM, SII, SIII or SIV. I suggest you watch all the movies again, and read a few comics after you're done.

You don't believe in watching movies a second time, remember? After long discussions I managed to have you agreeing with yourself on that.

Now, broad generalization? When I gave an specific example? Lois was portrayed as superficial. She despised Clark and pitied him (according to you because he behaved clumsy) while adoring Superman for his looks and super-powers. But another woman in the same universe, that wasn't superficial, Lana Lang, appreciated Clark the way he was.

Relevant example.

Quote:

Originally Posted by charl_huntress

Hahahaah.....ahahahhahaah.....hahahahaah....hahaha ha..... You have fun at the Hype, Senator. You are going to need a sense of humor for the long road ahead...

Well, thanks to me you have admitted so many times that you were wrong (when you asked me to see movies again even though you don't believe it's necessary, when you realized there's action in SR after saying there wasn't merely because you personally didn't like it - difference between liking something and its existence - same thing with uplifting moments, when you realized you had actually liked the movie, when you realized you had haterphobia being an admitted hater yourself) that it brings some satisfaction that you stand corrected and learn about the movie and yourself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by charl_huntress

What's your point? Ahhh...that's right...you don't have a point. Again, you're just saying something that's irrelevant. That's what you do when you can't rebut. You just throw something else out there that has nothing to do with the conversation.

In fact, there wasn't a point. First time you get it without further explanation from me. Good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by charl_huntress

Let me ask you this... Why do you care about SR so much? I freely admit I have an unhealthy fascination with trashing this movie, but you... What's your deal?

Because there are many people like yourself who bash the movie on the basis of wrong facts, wrong definitions, wrong recollections and pure hate that some light had to be shed on this thread.